Who knows? But there was a “Socratic Forum” held on the topic “That Canberra is taking too much power from the States” at the Legislative Council Chamber in the Queensland Parliament House on Wednesday night. Speakers included bloggers John Quiggin and Andrew Bartlett. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend as I’d planned, but Sam Clifford was there, and has written a very informative and comprehensive post about the debate. It’s good to hear that someone - more specifically, Griffith Uni’s Professor Charles Sampford - spoke up in favour of the subsidiarity principle. It’s one that logically Kevin Rudd could have used to find a good philosophical ground for opposing the Queensland local council amalgamations (rather than being suspected of political opportunism) and certainly not an argument that would have been available to the aspirational nationalists. Howard’s notion of community has nothing to do with self governance but rather a cargo cult of election sweeteners dropping from his fist full of our tax dollars. The truth is that we’re likely to get continued centralism whichever way the election goes - if Rudd is elected it’ll be a bureaucratic control freak’s heaven of targets, metrics and spreadsheets - as his riff on the New Labour NHS policy seems to foreshadow. It’s hard not to agree with Sampford that it’s an indictment on the quality of public debate that so much of the shift of power has been debated only in the arid terms of electoral advantage.
Sampford then talked about the European idea of “subsidiarity”, the notion that decisions should be made at the lowest level of government possible. Sometimes that means the international level is the most appropriate, such as for a regional defence or trade plan, but often local/borough government is the best place to make the decision (such as for a new bus route). By making decisions at such an appropriate level, the people affected by the issue are given a real chance to have their say heard by the relevant elected representatives. The United Kingdom have begun to take this approach by creating the Scottish and Welsh National Assemblies and giving further power to local governments. The UK, one of the world’s most well known Westminster-style federations (England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales; inside, outside puppy-dogs’ tails), provides evidence against Brandis’ suggestion that accretion of power at the highest and most centralised level of government is some sort of natural progress that should not necessarily be opposed.
Update: More from John Quiggin and Andrew Bartlett.
Mark and all:
The “states” are nothing but the former colonies, with boundaries determined by the transient needs of the Colonial Office in London way back in the 19th Century. Federation was only a continuation of this system without any fundamental changes.
Whether Australia continues with a federal system or not, it is clear that the “states” in their present form no longer make economic sense so they have to go [except for traditional sporting affiliations, of course
]. Whether the “states” are replaced by a dozen or so “provinces” or by a few hundred local authorities is something that can be worked out by involving the whole citizenry in the process; the result may not be perfect but it would be a great improvement on the colonial relic.
Several new state movements and other reformer groups have been working on the problem for more than a hundred years …. Suddenly, the Beattie government goes off half-cocked in response to Howard’s productivity-wrecking ratbaggery and brings in its forced amalgamations of shire councils. Good planning would have made rational efficient amalgamations [and separations too] take place with the enthusiastic support of everybody. The results of this stupidity, this Policy-By-Sledgehammer, have been the unexpected resuscitation of th dying National Party, the licensing of religious extremists to create even more mischief than ever in rural areas …. and the smashing of all the good work that has been done over many years to bring about long-overdue reform. Whoever thought up this idiocy must be sacked.
And have got nowhere, nutters as they are.
I wasn’t aware of subsidiarity until I heard Sampford talk about it the other night. I was aware that Britain had been devolving power and that local government has a much stronger role there than in Australia. Making decisions at the lowest level of government possible is something that’s so straight forward and common sense that you wonder (with a palm to the face) why we haven’t been doing it all along. It involves the people affected and gives them the strongest voice they can have on the issue. Truly this is the way in which Australian democracy must move if it is to remain both relevant and accessible to the people.
Which leads me to ask whether either of the major parties will ever again refer to their own (or any) philosophical road-map when making policy decisions. It is obvious both parties (leaders?) have abandoned their respective idealogical templates in favour of a random and ever-increasing set of focus-group-driven locally-popular policies developed on the run without reference to any guiding principles whatsoever. Yes, Mr Rudd could have used the subsidiarity principle to set himself above the pack on the Queenslang local government issue, but would his pollsters have approved?
Nice one, Mark.
Perhaps Howard adopted the Cargo Cult as his way of integrating with the Asia-Pacific Basin, in which he seeks to stand tall.
There are certainly parallels with PNG practice, Katz, where MPs get thousands of kina just to spread around their electorates buying votes.
GregM:
When I mentioned ” several new state movements and other reformer groups have been working on the problem for more than a hundred years …”.
The best you could come up with was
without even bothering to say a word about why such movements came into existence, why they persist and why they have been so astonishingly unsuccessful in achieving even one iota of reform [except for a very restricted form of self-administration in the Northern “Territory”].
Perhaps you can share with us all your feelings on exactly why a truly autonomous Top End or New England or North Queensland [or any other alternatives to the worn-out Colonial era structures] could not be very prosperous?
Or would you rather stay in your own little world happily calling reformers, pioneers and progressives …. “nutters”.
Mark:
How could be so unkind to the Man Of Steel?
The have been unsuccessful because the people of those aras are happy with the current arrangements. A good thing too as we don’t want any more albatrosses like Tasmania hanging around our necks.
GregM:
What??!!
Yeah? Right. A long way south of the 22nd parallel perhaps. That’s why the issue has never been put to a referendum - the vote FOR separation would outdo the percentage in the 1967 referendum.
Secession from the Commonwealth Of Australia has been seriously considered …. and after the Beattie government’s momentary attack of lunacy, it might yet happen.
Graham, I am currently living north of the 22nd parallel. I see no evidence that the citizens up here have taken up arms and are preparing to march on Brisbane in order to seize Peter Beattie, put him in a tumbril and take him off to The Place of the Revolution for his tryst with Madame Guillotine.
Most of them think his local government reforms are pretty sensible.
I don’t know about that. Howard’s response to the NT crisis has been pretty much in line with Blainey’s ideology. Howard clearly listens to what Blainey has to say given that he’s appointed him as part of a panel to review the History syllabus.
There’s also the fact that his response to climate change has been based almost solely on neoliberal policies of non-binding agreements over regulations and pushing for a market rather than a tax.
That’s not to say that Howard doesn’t engage in populism, he clearly does (MV Tampa). He hasn’t abandoned ideology any longer, it’s just wrapped in words like “pragmatic” and “aspirational”. Selling off Telstra is hardly populist and the same can be said of his power grabs on workplace relations and water. They’re not populist, they’re big government neoliberalist.
What I think is the essential problem of governance in Australia, remains with the fundamentals of why individuals put themselves up for election.I think it is somewhat unwise to overlook this as the apparent failure of today s governing so why would new systems be any different!?The confidence of Brandis and how he answers questions should immediately show,it just doesnt matter, until these type people see themselves in a new way…and that normally occurs because of a loss of office.I have read and heard all sorts of hyperbole about how the system changes its participants,but, a regard for logic would deem that a great and useless insight.If people change once they are in the system could it be that ,that is the proof that the system doesnt change anyone at all!?I go over to American related sites,and the liberal versus conservative thing,and yet on some issues they tarnish any sense of honesty and urgency by pointing out the so called stupidity of irrelevance of others positions.I have enough problems defining myself as a positionist in our present system to not want to engage in the theoretical event, that provinces etcetera would do a better job. There would still need to be a civil or public service,and the experiences and qualifications for those jobs would need to be established.I am not convinced that the legal and other determinants that are suggestive and real evaluators of individuals as they are is making our present systems as efficient and materially advantagious for all.For example,we have seen the Federal Government go into the Northern Territory with some strange concoctions of necessity unrelated in great part to the reports that were suggestive of actions.So Aboriginals in a CDEP scheme will be disemployed and then re-employed essentially to do the same thing,under the current understandings of what are real economics and something obscure using the word destiny.If I could do the job of a Mayor, State Minister,Or federal Member for a day,and have my decisions go through the bureaucratic processes as they are honestly, would this be any disadvantage to the remaining days Office Bearer!?The Aboriginals in some of these Community schemes have been acting in the National interest at a rate of pay lower than normal operatives,thus showing up a number of matters of evaluations at once.There may well be a time in the near future,where all levels of governance need to say to themselves..we are not the best,others can do the work, the work is both necessary and unnecessary,my power and prestige my real worth in a material sense requires me not to expect anything but the constant and real demand about wether competence is expressed at all in governance!? And would the judiciary be able to be like this too.!?Seems not,if taking Brennan seriously.For if terrorism exists and just waits to potentialise,if that meets the developmental outcomes as in the description of a act of terrorism,if whatever, operating authorities knew such likelihoods, why would it be necessary to curtail freedoms and liberties..whereas in fact should it be considered a lack of citizen responsibility!? So law,developed in keeping terrorism in mind would dutifully consider how not to interfere with essential freedoms but, insist by action of law on matters of meeting responsibilities.So, if these thoughts of mine at least meet a standard of logic, the requirements of responsibility of potential terrorist activists needs to be set out clearly in law as the essentialising matters of authorities actions against the irresponsible.With Brennan there is nothing definitive accept the authorities rights to act according to whatever law exists to stop terrorism,whereas I am saying that can lead anywhere,but doesnt have the limitation of the characterizing of responsibilities required.So Brennan is a retired Judge,which isnt a character assasination on my part,and I am essentially unemployed making a point about equivalence about matters law and justice. The operational processes of any form of governance usually requires people to intelligently engage their skills.This however, is not always as easy or as observable as the simple understanding suggests,in fact government appears in whatever form,the more intellectual input, the stupid it appears.A generality, I know, but not an unexpected one.So in offering up alternative structures,maybe ,it should all be preceeded by the unraveling of how it is our present systems in comparison have some sort of failing.That failing may have multiple factors,but in comparison with anything new not yet developed,a remaining resonance of just human failure ..but not complete systemic and systematic failure.
Ronald, a couple of observations if I may:
The sale of Telstra is hardly a grab for power or a move towards big government but rather is an example of privatisation (which of course is the philosophical antithesis of socialisation). Big government is contrary to the basic beliefs professed by the Liberals. From the Liberal party’s website:
(Further, neo-liberalism defends the free economy, free trade and small government.)
Neither is the Murray-Darling basin water initiative a power grab. (It is, incidentally, a case where it would be difficult to apply the principle of subsidiarity especially since the basin itself drains parts of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and all of the ACT.) If it is appropriate that one authority should manage the system and its water rights instead of the current multi-jurisdictional model, then the Federal government is probably the logical choice.
As far as workplace relations go, they are an application of the theory which holds that deregulation of the labour market (including the reform of unfair dismissal laws) will stimulate employment. They are a grab for power only in so far as they further limit the power of trade unions.
By the way, according to this graph at the ABS, then number of public servants has steadily declined from 1988 to 2000 and then shows a much smaller upswing through to 2005. The total number has decreased overall in that period from more than 160,000 to around 133,000, further supporting the Libs’ application of their philosophical commitment to smaller government.
This is hardly surprising. Mr Howard has made it clear that he doesn’t subscribe to the ‘black-armband’ view of Australia’s history so this was a no-brainer.
I’m not sure how you square that with the fact that they strip the state systems of coverage, and thus state parliaments and industrial relations commissions of power. Subsidiarity is not the only principle one can counterpose to centralism. It’s a traditional justification for federalism that it enables policy not just to be directed to local needs (and there are substantially different labour markets and average wage levels across Australia) but also for policy innovation and experimentation. So, some jurisdictions (notably Tasmania and NSW) introduced innovative gender equity models in their legislation which were later picked up by others (now junked by WorkChoices, along with much else). In addition, it’s much harder to have direct contact and influence on policy makers and representatives in Canberra than in a state capital or with a state member who has a smaller electorate to service.
These are all traditional anti-centralist arguments Liberals used to make, and they have much validity.
The graph doesn’t account for the number of employees who are still paid by the federal government but are no longer employed by departments and thus members of the APS but by corporatised agencies. I suggest you look at the critique of Howard’s big government conservatism from Andrew Norton who is himself a member of the Liberal Party.
See, for instance:
http://www.cis.org.au/Policy/summer_06/summer_06_pdfs/summer_2006_norton.pdf
GregM:
Aaah, now I see where your hostility to reform is coming from …. yes, you have probably been listening to some of the bludgers who are terrified at the thought of being tipped off their own little gravy-train if a “new state” or any similar reform is made; they’re probably out on the streets right now screaming for Beattie to be hanged, drawn and quartered; they’ve always been an obstacle to change, any change; if they had their way, the wireless and the motor-car would be abolished and God Save The King would still be the national anthem [bloody troglodytes]. They’ve always tried to stop a “new state ” coming into being.
Apart from these troglodytes, no doubt everyone else would feel that there are potential efficiencies and economies-of-scale that could come out of forced amalgamations, Trouble is, they are only potential ones and may not necessarily be as good as they seem.
What is so stupid is that Beattie had a perfect opportunity to bring in long overdue reform and showed he was ready to make bold moves to bring about change …. and then stuffed up, in large lumps, that golden opportunity to create regional or provincial or whatever entities that made economic and social sense and instead went for merely abolishing “rotten borough” councils.
Concepts like devolution and the subsidiarity about which Prof. Sampford spoke seem beyond the grasp of the Beattie government [and their Opposition can’t find the dictionary, let alone the word
]. This was the Beattie government’s second huge blunder: they failed to see that moving more decision making power to a local area would generally lead to more efficiency and revenue-saving in the long run.
Kim:
Thanks for that link to the paper on the Rise Of Big Government Conservatism.
Why do you think I keep talking about Howard’s Soviet Australia?
Another way this regime bodgies up its statistics is by the use of military and security contractors: paid for by you and me but not officially on the payroll.
Intereting article Kim. I did find this quote particularly illuminating:
The irony of which would surely not be lost on many commenters here.
Andrew Bartlett’s post:
http://andrewbartlett.com/blog/?p=1667